Anytime you think I'm being too rough, anytime you think I'm being too tough, anytime you miss-your-mommy, QUIT! You sign your 1248, you get your gun, you shoot your pals, and you take a stroll down washout lane. Do you get me?

How is this different from any other year since the region was settled? As soon as we leave, the mostly permanent civil war will resume. They fight. They've always fought. They're either fighting occupiers or each other or both, and will continue to do so long after we're all dead. There is no winning position here and there never was.

vossiewulf:How is this different from any other year since the region was settled? As soon as we leave, the mostly permanent civil war will resume. They fight. They've always fought. They're either fighting occupiers or each other or both, and will continue to do so long after we're all dead. There is no winning position here and there never was.

vossiewulf:How is this different from any other year since the region was settled? As soon as we leave, the mostly permanent civil war will resume. They fight. They've always fought. They're either fighting occupiers or each other or both, and will continue to do so long after we're all dead. There is no winning position here and there never was.

They didn't really have a government, except for a brief period as a Soviet puppet state. If they had one, things would be a lot different.

We lost Vietnam because public opinion crapped out on us. Let's not be defeatist here.

PaulieattheTap:Haven't they been doing this for thousands of years? Let's get the fark out.

eyupif only there were some kind of written records of the recent past which we could examine which might give us clues about the past.

prediction for the day after we leave afghanistan1) warlords will take over2) grow opium and make tons of money3) taliban will return in force and fight and kill the warlords4) everything will be the same as it was the day before we first went in

omnibus_necanda_sunt:We lost Vietnam because public opinion crapped out on us. Let's not be defeatist here.

We did not lose Vietnam, the South Vietnamese did. The North wanted it more, were far more unified, and all the "leaders" such as they were in South Vietnam were a bunch of corrupt assholes who could not provide the unity and effort required to defeat an entirely committed North Vietnam. You can't win counterinsurgency against a highly motivated opponent in terrain tailor made for insurgency if the nation you're trying to defend is a fragmented mess of self-serving strongmen/warlords and corruption.

Which is exactly what Afghanistan is now, and has been for over 2,000 years. Nothing we have done or can do will change that equation and our guys are fighting a completely pointless battle. We should get our boots on the ground off that farking ground as quickly as we can and move completely to a drone war with occasional spoiling attacks as necessary to keep the lid on it returning to being an terrorist training ground, and otherwise leave them to killing each other and being belligerent, divisive, sectarian and tribal assholes as they've always been and want to be.

Maybe one day they will decide to do something different but it's for goddamned sure we're not going to be the ones to make them change.

We didn't go into Afghanistan to build a nation, we went there to get OBL and those harboring him. Well, OBL is sleeping with the fishes, and those harboring him have been scattered to the wind, if not killed.

Mission Accomplished. Let's go home and leave Afghanistan to the Afghans to sort out.

omnibus_necanda_sunt:vossiewulf: How is this different from any other year since the region was settled? As soon as we leave, the mostly permanent civil war will resume. They fight. They've always fought. They're either fighting occupiers or each other or both, and will continue to do so long after we're all dead. There is no winning position here and there never was.

They didn't really have a government, except for a brief period as a Soviet puppet state. If they had one, things would be a lot different.

We lost Vietnam because public opinion crapped out on us. Let's not be defeatist here.

We lost in Vietnam because we tried to prop up a corrupt Catholic regime in a 95% Buddhist country, and because we didn't send ground troops into the North.

As long as the west have been aware of Afghanistan (ie; since Alexander the Great tried to reach the "ends of the world and the Great Outer Sea") Afghans have mostly fought other Afghans, except the few times they banded together to fight invaders. In other words, this isn't news. It would be news if they DIDN'T fight each other...

namatad:PaulieattheTap: Haven't they been doing this for thousands of years? Let's get the fark out.

eyupif only there were some kind of written records of the recent past which we could examine which might give us clues about the past.

prediction for the day after we leave afghanistan1) warlords will take over2) grow opium and make tons of money3) taliban will return in force and fight and kill the warlords4) everything will be the same as it was the day before we first went in

what a waste of lives, time and money

Nah,I think it's a much simpler evolution than that.

(1) West completely pulls out(2) Taliban is back in full and uncontested control of Afghanistan in less than a week.(3) Mass executions of all those, who collaborated with the "Kufir Infidels"

Pretty sure the only way the fighting in Afghanistan will stop is when there's only one person left alive. Of course he/she will probably be killed by a bear, leopard, or wolf, so that won't last very long. By then the Pakistanis will have started moving in and they'll start fighting among themselves just like THEY've always done.

Now listen to me you benighted muckers. We're going to teach you soldiering. The world's noblest profession. When we're done with you, you'll be able to slaughter your enemies like civilized men.---Daniel Dravot

omnibus_necanda_sunt:vossiewulf: How is this different from any other year since the region was settled? As soon as we leave, the mostly permanent civil war will resume. They fight. They've always fought. They're either fighting occupiers or each other or both, and will continue to do so long after we're all dead. There is no winning position here and there never was.

They didn't really have a government, except for a brief period as a Soviet puppet state. If they had one, things would be a lot different.

We lost Vietnam because public opinion crapped out on us. Let's not be defeatist here.

I don't want to start a flame war here, but... Can someone here please explain WHY our military is still there?We went there because the Taliban was harboring BinLaden. Well, he's dead now. Oh, and btw, they found him in Pakistan. Unlike Iraq, we didn't destabilize the country by going in and blowing up the people in power. The place was already unstable. So why are we obligated to hang around there now?!

You don't want to compare this to Vietnam? I'm afraid there is little else to compare ALL of our current military situations to. Except there is oil on the line in this century.

If the Soviets, whose military was much more ruthless than ours could ever be, couldn't keep the peace, what makes us think we can? We're not winning their hearts and we're unwilling to resort to genocide. We need to get our people out of there before more are needlessly killed.

omnibus_necanda_sunt:vossiewulf: How is this different from any other year since the region was settled? As soon as we leave, the mostly permanent civil war will resume. They fight. They've always fought. They're either fighting occupiers or each other or both, and will continue to do so long after we're all dead. There is no winning position here and there never was.

They didn't really have a government, except for a brief period as a Soviet puppet state. If they had one, things would be a lot different.

We lost Vietnam because public opinion crapped out on us. Let's not be defeatist here.

Let's not embellish the failure in Vietnam, the world knows the US military got it's arse kicked from one end of the country to the other and back again. World opinion was against that mass abortion of life more 5 years before it ended.Now, via absolute ignorance of the religious divisions and the lessons not learnt in Vietnam, the US Military is heading for the same result in the Middle East.

There's a whole lot of true internationalists and humanitarians in this thread, almost makes me want to vomit with joy. Anyway, here's a couple interesting things FTA:

"Three decades of war can play a pivotal role in the internal causes," said Maj. Bashir Ishaqzia, commander of the Afghan National Police recruitment center in Nangarhar Province. He said one of the biggest challenges for the army and police forces was a lasting "culture of intolerance among Afghans, as well as old family, tribal, ethnic, factional, lingual and personal disputes."

Two things about this: One, this is very unsurprising given how long Afghanistan was maimed by the taliban; Two, this was a perfect description of the Iraqi Kurds for a long time, and they got over their squabbles, so it is possible.

"Afghan and American officials said Thursday that some explanations for the rising number of Afghan-on-Afghan attacks were intuitive: there are about three times as many Afghan security force members as there are NATO and American troops, and only a portion of the Afghan forces regularly work side by side with Western troops."

One reason Afghan forces are more at risk of infiltration is that they typically live in compounds without anything near the protection found at bases with American troops, said Gen. Aminullah Amar Khail, former commander of the border police in eastern Afghanistan.

"The enemy would prefer to focus full attention on targeting American and coalition forces," General Khail said. "But normally they do not have easy access to foreign soldiers." He said green-on-blue episodes tend to happen only at training centers and joint Afghan-NATO bases and outposts, while green-on-green attacks "have happened everywhere."

"Infiltrators have easy access to the Afghan police and soldiers," he said.

And there are some thing we can do as well, more NATO personnel for training, and an increase in security at Afghan bases and police outposts, as well as a commitment to not abandon these people.

thunderbird8804:There's a whole lot of true internationalists and humanitarians in this thread, almost makes me want to vomit with joy. Anyway, here's a couple interesting things FTA:

"Three decades of war can play a pivotal role in the internal causes," said Maj. Bashir Ishaqzia, commander of the Afghan National Police recruitment center in Nangarhar Province. He said one of the biggest challenges for the army and police forces was a lasting "culture of intolerance among Afghans, as well as old family, tribal, ethnic, factional, lingual and personal disputes."

Two things about this: One, this is very unsurprising given how long Afghanistan was maimed by the taliban; Two, this was a perfect description of the Iraqi Kurds for a long time, and they got over their squabbles, so it is possible.

"Afghan and American officials said Thursday that some explanations for the rising number of Afghan-on-Afghan attacks were intuitive: there are about three times as many Afghan security force members as there are NATO and American troops, and only a portion of the Afghan forces regularly work side by side with Western troops."

One reason Afghan forces are more at risk of infiltration is that they typically live in compounds without anything near the protection found at bases with American troops, said Gen. Aminullah Amar Khail, former commander of the border police in eastern Afghanistan.

"The enemy would prefer to focus full attention on targeting American and coalition forces," General Khail said. "But normally they do not have easy access to foreign soldiers." He said green-on-blue episodes tend to happen only at training centers and joint Afghan-NATO bases and outposts, while green-on-green attacks "have happened everywhere."

"Infiltrators have easy access to the Afghan police and soldiers," he said.

And there are some thing we can do as well, more NATO personnel for training, and an increase in security at Afghan bases and police outposts, as well as a commitment to not abandon thes ...

Only if we, as a nation, are stupider than some dogs I've owned.Time to get out, and stay out of central Asia.

thunderbird8804:There's a whole lot of true internationalists and humanitarians in this thread, almost makes me want to vomit with joy.And there are some thing we can do as well, more NATO personnel for training, and an increase in security at Afghan bases and police outposts, as well as a commitment to not abandon these people.

I get what you're saying. But the biggest problem isn't with humanitarian intent or goals, but how to achieve them. The United States military is a weapon system, not a toolbox. Every bit of military training involves the achievement of military objectives - the degradation and destruction of enemy military forces until their government surrenders. The US military does that job better than any other military on Earth. But their job now is occupation, not the achievement of military objectives. There's just a tiny bit of doctrine about occupying a nation - but it assumes the nation to be fairly stable, like Japan and West Germany were after WW2.

Basically, the military is not designed to stabilize an unstable nation. So we're throwing lives and a seemingly-endless stream of borrowed money into something that simply doesn't know how to achieve its current mission.

Now that we've learned this, we can adapt. A strong argument could be made to spin off 35-40% of current military forces (active and reserve) out of the four current warfighting components and into a new expeditionary humanitarian force. A force made entirely of civil affairs, medical personnel, chaplains, teachers, and tons of construction workers. This force could be deployed by NATO, requested by the UN, or even requested by the recognized government of a developing nation. But it would be trained, from the bottom up, to build nations rather than fight wars.

Either way, two things should happen:1. The military mission in Afghanistan needs to end as quickly as possible.2. Legislation (or a constitutional amendment) needs to be passed that no US warfighting or nation-building expedition can be authorized without an automatic progressive increase in taxes to cover said expedition.

clkeagle:thunderbird8804: There's a whole lot of true internationalists and humanitarians in this thread, almost makes me want to vomit with joy.And there are some thin

snip

Either way, two things should happen:1. The military mission in Afghanistan needs to end as quickly as possible.2. Legislation (or a constitutional amendment) needs to be passed that no US warfighting or nation-buildin ...

Now you get that "common sense", "level headed" bullshiat out of this fark thread right now. It's that kind of clear thinking that will end flame wars and negate the troll-fu.I don't come to fark to solve the worlds problems. I come to laugh at them.

But srsly, You make great points and I agree with both of your "should happen"s.

After Afghanistan and Iraq I was seriously waiting for Bush and his cronies to go after Russia figuring the about the only strategic mistake they hadn't made yet was chasing (and of course I mean following) the Russian army into Siberia just before winter hit. It's obvious Texas GOP doesn't promote critical thinking.

Well, I don't think you're correct on what the US military is, modern militarys are far more flexible than kill/destroy, especially our own. I do agree with you on this though:

clkeagle:Either way, two things should happen:1. The military mission in Afghanistan needs to end as quickly as possible.2. Legislation (or a constitutional amendment) needs to be passed that no US warfighting or nation-building expedition can be authorized without an automatic progressive increase in taxes to cover said expedition.

I love your second idea, cover costs and commit us a little more to the conflicts we enter. And I think the military mission will end as soon as possible, but I don't think that's going to be possible for a few years yet.

*sigh*Fark those people. They don't want our help. They don't want any help. They just want to slaughter everyone who doesn't follow their *exact* belief system. Mohammed was the greatest dude ever? Cool, you get to live. Wait, did you say Mohammed might have been left handed? No, he was right handed *blam*.

All these people know is killing each other. They are a tribal society. It would be like if every American city hated every other city. How can you ever hope to have an effective form of governement that isn't based on who has the most RPGs?

I'd be fine if they would just stick to killing each other, but occasionaly that shait spills out into our lap and becomes our problem.

I think glassing that entire country would be an effective solution. Not a very good one, but effective.

Thunderbox:Let's not embellish the failure in Vietnam, the world knows the US military got it's arse kicked from one end of the country to the other and back again. World opinion was against that mass abortion of life more 5 years before it ended.Now, via absolute ignorance of the religious divisions and the lessons not learnt in Vietnam, the US Military is heading for the same result in the Middle East.

We had NO major military losses in Vietnam. Hardly 'arse kicked from one end...' Heck, even the Tet Offensive was ultimately a US Victory. Where we lost was where we failed to fight - the theater of public opinion, the media, etc...

GBB:Perhaps they should have more stringent requirements for recruits??

We're trying, however as TappingTheVein mentions, Afghans think of themselves as tribes first, so there's no natural loyalty to the country to exploit. About the best you can do is question tribal/village leaders about specific recruits, but if the leaders themselves are Taliban sympathizers?

On the magnitude of the task, consider this.

It takes ~10-20 years to make a competent US Senior Non-Commisioned Officer (SNCO). It takes 20-30 to make a General Officer, somebody who can lead an army. The same is true with Police. With Afghanistan, we started with Day 1, and it took a while to get the basic training programs going.

Then look at US history and consider when New Yorkers, Georgians, Texans, and such stopped referring to themselves primarily as such and started calling themselves Americans. Heck, we still have people in the southern states sympathizing with the Confederate States, and there aren't even any survivors from then anymore!

Conclusion: It takes ~30 years to build a cohesive army from scratch, and that's if everything goes right(it's not in Afghanistan). It takes ~100 years to build a nation, and that's if the citizens cooperate. This isn't stuff that can be imposed from the outside - it has to come from inside the state.